Quinn disappointed at rejection of proposal
"I think I probably reflect the views of the entire membership of the SRC when I say that was our biggest disappointment,'' he commented after delegates had shown little inclination to alter structures at a variety of levels.
Pointing out that those currently in place were inappropriate to a modern multi-million euro organisation, he stated at the outset that only the management committee and the Central Council could provide the leadership that was now required. And, he repeated that warning before the debate.
"There really was only one motion that we felt was important to the future of the Association as an effective and an efficient organisation.'' Most of the other motions which failed didn't really matter, because they weren't going to have a major impact on next year or the year after, he added.
"We got about 15 motions through but I'd swap 14 of them for the Management Committee.
"My fear is that as a major commercial entity as well as a sporting and cultural entity we'll find difficulty managing it.''
In the course of a debate, Mr Quinn reacted to a comment made about him being "disillusioned." "Disillusionment didn't set in this morning,'' he said. "It has been there for a while.'' He explained later: "I suppose when you are in a position like we were in, you would have had to be optimistic. But we were also realistic to know that we weren't going to get even 50 of what we had proposed through and that was how it turned out.
There wasn't much of a mood for experimentation on Friday night in particular. Probably the fact that the rules were considered first didn't help us. An anti-SRC thing had built up. People felt threatened by it. Maybe it was better to get it out of the way. At least we had a reasonably constructive morning on Saturday, but the afternoon was a bit of a disappointment.''
He readily admitted his annoyance that errors in the drafting and presentation of the motions had not helped their cause. "We appointed the drafting committee, which included some of the biggest names in the Association. They didn't do a fantastic job,'' he said. "They were working under very considerable pressure, I'll accept that. But a couple of motions were ruled out of order and a couple had to be amended from the floor.
However, I'd have difficultd while I wasn't involved in the drafting, nor any of the people who spoke on behalf of the SRC, the fact is that we carried the can.'' His overall reaction was that Congress didn't believe it needed reforming. "Those of us who believe it does need reform could well be wrong. I happen to be believe that we are not wrong, but the possibility is that we are.''
Munster chairman Christy Cooney, another SRC member, was more positive, saying that while they didn't achieve what they had hoped for, there had been some constructive debates.
"We see this weekend as a new beginning and that the strategy put forward will enhance the Association in the years to come,'' he said. "However, constant and regular reviews will be necessary.''
While former president Joe McDonagh also a member of the Committee shared his reservations, he was delighted that Congress had given its backing to the proposal to extend county senior panels to 30 for League and championship. "Essentially you were talking about a situation that didn't recognise the practicality of what was happening in many counties. There's no point in us going on with noble gestures and patronising language in relation to the contribution of players if are not willing to put our money where our mouth is."
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
